This cannot be legal. How can they claim ownership over IP that they have yet to validate and even go as far to nullify a licensing agreement already in use? What if they fail in court and all these *licensees* want a refund (plus interest)
This must fall under extortion law. This isn't just a civil case anymore.
They *must* have thought of this beforehand. Why would their lawyers allow them to do such? I just can't figure out their angle.
Yes he does need a lawer. However, I don't think there is any harm in asking Slashdot. There might be people on Slashdot who have expierence in this sort of issue, and his lawer might not. He can take their suggestions to his lawer, and discuss the posibilities with him.
Then he should ask a lawyer that does. I wouldn't ask a criminal lawyer about a divorice. I would ask an IP lawyer about software licensing. While asking slashdot could give you some good ideas, it could also steer you into a horrible mistake. Like they say. Advise is like assholes; everyone has one and most of them stink.
One of the executives here were I work hold quite abit of SCO stock. Not because he supports SCO, but because their stock prices are rising. He said that he is keeping a watchful eye, and that he knows SCO can't win. He just notes that it's money and he wants a cut of it. He is a business man. Business is about money, and that justifies his actions in his mind.
I've read alot and people always saying SCO holds no valid claim, but most of what was said I found one sided, and could easily be disputed in court no matter how well said person believed it.
I read this on one of the links
On the other hand, JFS, NUMA software, RCU, and other such code might not meet the definition of derived works under the U.S. Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. 101, et. seq.). And they might not come under the purview of IBM's Unix Licenses.
If JFS, NUMA, RCU, and other such code in the Linux kernel does not meet the definition of derived works under the U.S. Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. 101, et. seq.), that means that SCO might not have any copyright infringement claims against Linux kernel and GNU/Linux operating system developers, Linux distribution providers, Linux users, and so forth -- at least insofar as JFS, NUMA, RCU, and the like are involved.
Here is the definition of "derivative work" from U.S. Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. 101, et. seq.) or http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#101
A ?derivative work? is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications, which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a ?derivative work?.
I believe this (the bold portion) should shed light on it. JFS, RCU, nor SMP reflect Unix System V as a whole.
Why don't they feature the starving artists of the hacking/cracking/cryptography reverse engineering tech industry? They are starving artist too ya know!
What if SCO loses in court? What happens to all the companies that buy these licenses to license linux via Unixware? Do they demand a refund? Will SCO just claim "Hey you licensed SCO, not Linux" and keep their moneies?
Secondly, What happens if SCO loses and now since they are *licensing* Linux technologies? I'm sure proper wording can eliminate this all, but several companies could get screwed out of hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars.
"Christoph Hellwig "Reverse engineering an advanced filesystem "Christoph Hellwig is employed by Caldera, working on the Linux-ABI binary emulation modules. In his spare time he cares for other parts of the kernel, often involving filesystem-related activities."
So, in short, he was contributing to the kernel and working for Caldera on Linux/UNIX integration at the same time. His work for Caldera was on the Linux kernel ("he worked for Caldera's German development subsidiary on various kernel and userlevel aspects of the OpenLinux distribution"), and he also did work on his own on the kernel. Did Caldera know about his freelance contributions, in addition to knowing about his work for them? What do you think? He used his hch at caldera.de email address when doing it. All contributions to the kernel are publicly available anyway. They certainly could have known. As for his job, his signature on his emails back in 2001 was:
Just because Christoph worked for Caldera doesn't mean any work he did on the kernel for adding JFS was supported by Caldera. It clearly states that he did that (JFS) work in his spare time. (not on Caldera's dollar) The work he did on Caldera's dollar was on Linux-ABI not RCU, SMP, or JFS.
Personally, I hope SCO dies a rotten nasty death, but I don't see how this information hurts SCO position unless you can directly relate Christoph's work to a SCO directive.
Is IT still a viable field to get into and if so will it last?"
I'm sorry, but is this a dumb question or what? The tech field is here to stay, so why even ask such a questions. The only reason why jobs are hard to find is that the *investing* side of the world thought that tech field was the *49ers* of the 21 century. Alot of wannbe tech people have jobs today that real techies should have and it's a shame. These guys should be doing something closer to what their real skills adapt too, not taking jobs from guys that actually have the skills to do it./rant off
The BSD philosophy also differs from that of Linux. Proponents of Linux tend to take a "revolutionary" stance, seeing their work as a war to compete with, and destroy, Microsoft and other commercial software vendors. But the BSDs are content to coexist with commercial software, and in fact are happy to allow commercial software to use what they create.
This is a bias statement that can not only apply to Linux, but any version of BSD. I'm pro linux, but I don't see Linux as a tool to kill Microsoft. I'm also pro BSD, but don't see it as that way either. I actually find BSD harder to work with in a enterprise environment due to the lack of software. I've been lucky enough to use Linux in many locations within the workplace because it's suited to the job (webserver/email server/ databases) and it has all the software I require to run it. (the main issues are BSD backup support for my hardware/software)
Don't get me wrong. I love FreeBSD. It's my utility server at home. (procmail/ftp/webserver/database/file server-mp3s) I just prefer linux as my desktop (the drivers make a world of difference) at home.
We are a local retal/class B wholesale alcoholic beverage company. ($100 million+ company) The default mail client that we install is either Mozilla and/or Netscape. Netscape is installed for those that *want* the extra clutter. Because of the CEO, everyone has the option to choose Outlook. (thats all he will used no matter what we tell him about it) We usually argue with anyone requesting it until they give in, but if they refuse, we have no choice but allow them to use Outlook. Personally, I wouldn't mine anyone using Outlook at all if it wasn't for the the virus issues involved with it. It's not that bad of an email client with all it's tools.
Maybe he will turn out like his father
on
Working Hard?
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
You've miss the point. Microsoft could effectively kill java by not including it in their operating system. It goes back to the whole Netscape/IE law suits. Microsoft held/holds a monopoly on the home PC market. IE appears on all those PCs, why download Netscape. As you have plainly seen. Netscape's market was been all but destoryed. Sun was trying to force Microsoft to include Java in the Windows distro. So Java doesn't go out the Window(s) (pun intended)
As for your "Java is free. While Java is free for you to download, Microsoft had to pay for it to put it in the Windows distro.
I don't know what you say to be right or wrong. I don't remember reading anything about dirivative work in the GPL. I just remember that you couldn't use GPL code. (dirivative in the since that I recreated the wheel using the same principle)
Next subject of this post.
SCO is claiming that JSF is a dirivative of Unix because IBM licensed Unix SysV and jfs was first built into AIX. Now, I write code, but it's basic utilities in C/C++ and php, shell scripts. Never have I wrote anything near a filesystem. BUT. I have a question. How (at least in my understanding) can a file system be a dirivative of an operating system? Isn't a filesystem a format in which data is written to disk? (in other words OS independant) Linux can write to fat16, fat32, ntfs, reiserfs, ext, ext2, ext3, hpfs, ISO 9660, etc, etc, etc.. While only a few of those were written for Linux in the first place? SMP is just another of the same question. Unix isn't the only OS to have SMP (dirivitive or not)
I hope SCO's owners (those law suit hounds guys not *all* stock holders) die a horrible death...
2. The "GPL not suitable for secretive government bodies" is also overblown. The Intellect just suggests that if the Government wants to maintain confidential codes, they can't do it under GPL.
Actually, If I understand the GPL correctly; they can. They just can't redistribute their changes without revealing their code (and codes). Althought, they can distribute changes (the source code itself) for what changes they don't hold confidential. Therein returning work to the community. You can make all the changes you want to GPL code without releasing the code. You just can't release the (new) binaries without contributing it's code also.
IBM should follow Jerry Jones's (owner of the Dallas Cowboys) lead.
NFL Properties, the league's business and marketing arm, filed a $300 million lawsuit in September 1995 that challenged licensing and sponsorship agreements involving Jones and Texas Stadium that included private contracts with Nike, AT&T, Dr Pepper, American Express and Pepsi. The suit contended those arrangements violated NFL Properties' centralized licensing and marketing role.
In response, the Cowboys filed a $700 million lawsuit in November 1995, charging that NFL Properties' centralized role violated antitrust laws. The suit also claims the Texas Stadium sponsorships don't involve Cowboys trademarks and are consistent with NFL Properties' rules.
The NFL backed off because they were going to get stomped. (They don't own Texas Stadium; The Cowboys lease it from Jerry Jones even though Jerry Jones own both the Cowboys and Texas Stadium)
If I remember correctly, RHEL has a 5 year lifetime. RedHat will be support it for 5 years. I think the wording must be changed. I do not think the wording they use is legal. I think it should be noted that RedHat will not support RHEL if you do not get support. (bug fixes, and the other services that make RHEL critical app ready. (an enterprise size oracle database etc) I believe you should be able to install it as many times as you like, but you just won't get the license agreement that RedHat stamps on that version of RH Linux. (the whole 5 year deal) Why should RedHat guaranteed an enterprise level OS if no one wants to pay for it.
My point is, they need to reword their EULA and then everyone can move on.
The box price isn't the total cost of each copy of XP. You still have all the R&D cost, support cost, promotional cost, lawyer cost, all the funds used to try and kill off the competition cost.
Selling XP at $50 is verging a loss, if it isn't outright a loss. I'm sure they are just using there huge bank roll to stifle competition.
Slashdot Mirror
This cannot be legal. How can they claim ownership over IP that they have yet to validate and even go as far to nullify a licensing agreement already in use? What if they fail in court and all these *licensees* want a refund (plus interest)
This must fall under extortion law. This isn't just a civil case anymore.
They *must* have thought of this beforehand. Why would their lawyers allow them to do such? I just can't figure out their angle.
Maybe this means that Evolution will get S/MIME support now.
As the old adage goes... All long journeys begin with but a single step.
Yes he does need a lawer. However, I don't think there is any harm in asking Slashdot. There might be people on Slashdot who have expierence in this sort of issue, and his lawer might not. He can take their suggestions to his lawer, and discuss the posibilities with him.
Then he should ask a lawyer that does. I wouldn't ask a criminal lawyer about a divorice. I would ask an IP lawyer about software licensing. While asking slashdot could give you some good ideas, it could also steer you into a horrible mistake. Like they say. Advise is like assholes; everyone has one and most of them stink.
One of the executives here were I work hold quite abit of SCO stock. Not because he supports SCO, but because their stock prices are rising. He said that he is keeping a watchful eye, and that he knows SCO can't win. He just notes that it's money and he wants a cut of it. He is a business man. Business is about money, and that justifies his actions in his mind.
They could, but such action would require money and lots of it.
I've read alot and people always saying SCO holds no valid claim, but most of what was said I found one sided, and could easily be disputed in court no matter how well said person believed it.
I read this on one of the links
On the other hand, JFS, NUMA software, RCU, and other such code might not meet the definition of derived works under the U.S. Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. 101, et. seq.). And they might not come under the purview of IBM's Unix Licenses.
If JFS, NUMA, RCU, and other such code in the Linux kernel does not meet the definition of derived works under the U.S. Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. 101, et. seq.), that means that SCO might not have any copyright infringement claims against Linux kernel and GNU/Linux operating system developers, Linux distribution providers, Linux users, and so forth -- at least insofar as JFS, NUMA, RCU, and the like are involved.
Here is the definition of "derivative work" from U.S. Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. 101, et. seq.) or http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#101
A ?derivative work? is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications, which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a ?derivative work?.
I believe this (the bold portion) should shed light on it. JFS, RCU, nor SMP reflect Unix System V as a whole.
I've already made the complaint to each, and contacted government officals.
l s/
G _C ODE=PU01
Write your government officals:
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/dbq/officia
File a complaint with the FTC:
https://rn.ftc.gov/pls/dod/wsolcq$.startup?Z_OR
File a complaint with SEC:
www.sec.gov/complaint/cf942sec9570.htm
Sorry, SCO already purchused a Unixware license making their use of Linux legal. :)
Why don't they feature the starving artists of the hacking/cracking/cryptography reverse engineering tech industry? They are starving artist too ya know!
What if SCO loses in court? What happens to all the companies that buy these licenses to license linux via Unixware? Do they demand a refund? Will SCO just claim "Hey you licensed SCO, not Linux" and keep their moneies?
Secondly, What happens if SCO loses and now since they are *licensing* Linux technologies? I'm sure proper wording can eliminate this all, but several companies could get screwed out of hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars.
"Christoph Hellwig
"Reverse engineering an advanced filesystem
"Christoph Hellwig is employed by Caldera, working on the Linux-ABI binary emulation modules. In his spare time he cares for other parts of the kernel, often involving filesystem-related activities."
So, in short, he was contributing to the kernel and working for Caldera on Linux/UNIX integration at the same time. His work for Caldera was on the Linux kernel ("he worked for Caldera's German development subsidiary on various kernel and userlevel aspects of the OpenLinux distribution"), and he also did work on his own on the kernel. Did Caldera know about his freelance contributions, in addition to knowing about his work for them? What do you think? He used his hch at caldera.de email address when doing it. All contributions to the kernel are publicly available anyway. They certainly could have known. As for his job, his signature on his emails back in 2001 was:
Just because Christoph worked for Caldera doesn't mean any work he did on the kernel for adding JFS was supported by Caldera. It clearly states that he did that (JFS) work in his spare time. (not on Caldera's dollar) The work he did on Caldera's dollar was on Linux-ABI not RCU, SMP, or JFS.
Personally, I hope SCO dies a rotten nasty death, but I don't see how this information hurts SCO position unless you can directly relate Christoph's work to a SCO directive.
Someone actually got the words Microsoft and Security in the same subject line! :)
Is IT still a viable field to get into and if so will it last?"
/rant off
I'm sorry, but is this a dumb question or what? The tech field is here to stay, so why even ask such a questions. The only reason why jobs are hard to find is that the *investing* side of the world thought that tech field was the *49ers* of the 21 century. Alot of wannbe tech people have jobs today that real techies should have and it's a shame. These guys should be doing something closer to what their real skills adapt too, not taking jobs from guys that actually have the skills to do it.
The BSD philosophy also differs from that of Linux. Proponents of Linux tend to take a "revolutionary" stance, seeing their work as a war to compete with, and destroy, Microsoft and other commercial software vendors. But the BSDs are content to coexist with commercial software, and in fact are happy to allow commercial software to use what they create.
This is a bias statement that can not only apply to Linux, but any version of BSD. I'm pro linux, but I don't see Linux as a tool to kill Microsoft. I'm also pro BSD, but don't see it as that way either. I actually find BSD harder to work with in a enterprise environment due to the lack of software. I've been lucky enough to use Linux in many locations within the workplace because it's suited to the job (webserver/email server/ databases) and it has all the software I require to run it. (the main issues are BSD backup support for my hardware/software)
Don't get me wrong. I love FreeBSD. It's my utility server at home. (procmail/ftp/webserver/database/file server-mp3s) I just prefer linux as my desktop (the drivers make a world of difference) at home.
We are a local retal/class B wholesale alcoholic beverage company. ($100 million+ company) The default mail client that we install is either Mozilla and/or Netscape. Netscape is installed for those that *want* the extra clutter. Because of the CEO, everyone has the option to choose Outlook. (thats all he will used no matter what we tell him about it) We usually argue with anyone requesting it until they give in, but if they refuse, we have no choice but allow them to use Outlook. Personally, I wouldn't mine anyone using Outlook at all if it wasn't for the the virus issues involved with it. It's not that bad of an email client with all it's tools.
President for a single term.
This is BS.
You've miss the point. Microsoft could effectively kill java by not including it in their operating system. It goes back to the whole Netscape/IE law suits. Microsoft held/holds a monopoly on the home PC market. IE appears on all those PCs, why download Netscape. As you have plainly seen. Netscape's market was been all but destoryed. Sun was trying to force Microsoft to include Java in the Windows distro. So Java doesn't go out the Window(s) (pun intended)
As for your "Java is free. While Java is free for you to download, Microsoft had to pay for it to put it in the Windows distro.
I don't know what you say to be right or wrong. I don't remember reading anything about dirivative work in the GPL. I just remember that you couldn't use GPL code. (dirivative in the since that I recreated the wheel using the same principle)
Next subject of this post.
SCO is claiming that JSF is a dirivative of Unix because IBM licensed Unix SysV and jfs was first built into AIX. Now, I write code, but it's basic utilities in C/C++ and php, shell scripts. Never have I wrote anything near a filesystem. BUT. I have a question. How (at least in my understanding) can a file system be a dirivative of an operating system? Isn't a filesystem a format in which data is written to disk? (in other words OS independant) Linux can write to fat16, fat32, ntfs, reiserfs, ext, ext2, ext3, hpfs, ISO 9660, etc, etc, etc.. While only a few of those were written for Linux in the first place? SMP is just another of the same question. Unix isn't the only OS to have SMP (dirivitive or not)
I hope SCO's owners (those law suit hounds guys not *all* stock holders) die a horrible death...
2. The "GPL not suitable for secretive government bodies" is also overblown. The Intellect just suggests that if the Government wants to maintain confidential codes, they can't do it under GPL.
Actually, If I understand the GPL correctly; they can. They just can't redistribute their changes without revealing their code (and codes). Althought, they can distribute changes (the source code itself) for what changes they don't hold confidential. Therein returning work to the community. You can make all the changes you want to GPL code without releasing the code. You just can't release the (new) binaries without contributing it's code also.
IBM should follow Jerry Jones's (owner of the Dallas Cowboys) lead.
NFL Properties, the league's business and marketing arm, filed a $300 million lawsuit in September 1995 that challenged licensing and sponsorship agreements involving Jones and Texas Stadium that included private contracts with Nike, AT&T, Dr Pepper, American Express and Pepsi. The suit contended those arrangements violated NFL Properties' centralized licensing and marketing role.
In response, the Cowboys filed a $700 million lawsuit in November 1995, charging that NFL Properties' centralized role violated antitrust laws. The suit also claims the Texas Stadium sponsorships don't involve Cowboys trademarks and are consistent with NFL Properties' rules.
The NFL backed off because they were going to get stomped. (They don't own Texas Stadium; The Cowboys lease it from Jerry Jones even though Jerry Jones own both the Cowboys and Texas Stadium)
This is about IBM buying Sequent and the whole thing with SCO (and Monterey)
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-228275.html
Organize.
If I remember correctly, RHEL has a 5 year lifetime. RedHat will be support it for 5 years. I think the wording must be changed. I do not think the wording they use is legal. I think it should be noted that RedHat will not support RHEL if you do not get support. (bug fixes, and the other services that make RHEL critical app ready. (an enterprise size oracle database etc) I believe you should be able to install it as many times as you like, but you just won't get the license agreement that RedHat stamps on that version of RH Linux. (the whole 5 year deal) Why should RedHat guaranteed an enterprise level OS if no one wants to pay for it.
My point is, they need to reword their EULA and then everyone can move on.
The box price isn't the total cost of each copy of XP. You still have all the R&D cost, support cost, promotional cost, lawyer cost, all the funds used to try and kill off the competition cost.
Selling XP at $50 is verging a loss, if it isn't outright a loss. I'm sure they are just using there huge bank roll to stifle competition.